PAST AND FUTURE
An address, delivered by
Mohammad Hatta
upon receiving the degree of doctor honoris causa
from Gad j ah Mada University at Jogjakarta
on November 27th 1956.
TRANSLATION SERIES
MODERN INDONESIA PROJECT
Southeast Asia Program
Department of Far Eastern Studies
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Price—$1.00
SEAP Publications
not remove from room 213
640 Stewart AvenuePAST AND FUTURE
An address, delivered by
Mohammad Hatta
upon receiving the degree of doctor honoris causa
from Gadjah Mada University at Jogjakarta
on November 27th 1956.
TRANSLATION SERIES
Modern Indonesia Project
Southeast Asia Program
Department of Far Eastern Studies
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
1960©	1960 by Cornell Modern Indonesia ProjectPREFACE
A few days before his resignation as Vice President of
the Republic of Indonesia, Mohammad Hatta was awarded an
honorary degree by Gadjah Mada University. He chose this
occasion to make one of his most important addresses of the
last few years. It is one of the clearest recent expositions
of salient aspects of his political and socio-economic
thinking. It is also significant because of its incorporation
of many of his criticisms of political developments in Indo-
nesia and of the political philosophy of certain other promi-
nent Indonesian leaders at one of the critical periods of the
country’s post-revolutionary history. Although the address
was made more than three years ago, the views it incorporates
are essentially the same as those presently held by Dr. Hatta.
Except for the deletion of introductory remarks wherein
Dr. Hatta expressed his gratitude to Gadjah Mada University
for awarding him the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa, the
address stands as he delivered it on November 27, 1956.
George McT. Kahin
Director
Ithaca, New York
May 25, 1960Zum Werke, das wir Ernst bereiten,
Geziemt sich wohl ein ernstes Wort;
Wenn gute Reden sie begleiten,
Dann fliesst die Arbeit munter fort.
(SCHILLER)1
Ideals and realities are closely connected in their evo-
lution, whether both follow the same direction, or are related
to each other as a given situation and the reaction it evokes.
Confronting realities - particularly very bitter ones - people
often conceive of ideals as a cure for their wounded spirit,
ideals that give them hope for the future and inspire them
to do everything in their power to determine their own des-
tiny. In the place of the Netherlands Indies with all its
misery and tyranny, we envisaged and promised ourselves a
Free Indonesia, based on justice and prosperity, free from
suffering. These were the ideas that came to life and gradu-
ally gained strength in the minds of the younger generation
of Indonesians from the time that they became aware of their
tasks as children of the national community.
In general the Indonesia of those days can be described
as follows: Its social structure contained two contradictory
types of basis of living, collectivism and individualism.
Collectivism was the basis of the old Indonesian society and
individualism was the spirit of Netherlands Indies society
which was grafted on top of Indonesian society. In contrast
with social developments in Western countries, the structure
of feudalism was here not replaced by capitalist organization
but dominated and controlled from above. Faithful to the
principle of rationality, which was both its incentive and
the basis of its calculations, the capitalism which came to
Indonesia in the role of aggressor, plunderer and holder of
political power, did not destroy the existing feudal organi-
zation, but utilized it as a means for controlling the pro-
ductive power of the entire population.
The economy of Indonesia then consisted of several
kinds of mixtures of collectivism and individualism. On top
of the economy of the people, which to a large extent was
still based on gotong-rojong, mutual assistance, grew a
capitalist economy with all the stages of its development.
In the midst of an economy that was inspired by the "Idee
der Nahrung" - only interested in providing for the daily
necessities of life - economic structures were set up that
were guided by the profit principle, by the desire for greater
wealth. According to Bruno Hildebrand's theory of stages
the development of the economy of a community takes place
in three consecutive stages of Naturalwirtschaft, Geldwirtschaft
and Kreditwirtschaft. When applying this theory to Indonesia,
we find that these three stages were concurrently present
in this country. In the West the development of the economy2
stretched out lineally in time; here it consisted of vertical
layers, with the result that the third stage, by its superior
strength, oppressed the weaker stages and prevented their
progress. Moreover, for the greater part, these three separate
stages coincided with the different racial groups of the popu-
lation.
In the sphere of barter or semi-barter economy (Natural-
wirtschaft), which by then had already become a thin layer,
one found exclusively the various Indonesian ethnic groups.
This is where gotong-rojong prevailed in its pure form, a
system of working together in the form of social cooperation.
In the sphere of money economy, which ha.d spread into the
villages, Indonesians played a considerable part, and for the
remainder, and on the higher levels, the Chinese. The sphere
of credit economy, which completely dominated the lower
stages, was generally speaking in the hands of white men, who
used the Chinese as their tools in their dealings with the
lower spheres, reaching down into the Indonesian community.
From the viewpoint of the capitalist economy which in-
vaded this country, Indonesia was a huge estate, the exploita-
tion of which was based on two highly profitable factors, a
rich soil and a supply of cheap labor, two factors that
strengthened its international competitive position. Pro-
duction was not carried out in order to supply the domestic
needs of the country itself, but was completely geared to
the world market, thereby ensuring the highest possible
profit. As an outlet for industrial goods from the Nether-
lands, Indonesia was not yet very important. Its primary
economic function was exclusively that of a producing country.
This is why the economy of the Netherlands Indies could be
characterized as an "export economy."
As to its political structure, the Netherlands Indies
was a police state, a type of state organization in conformity
with the purpose of the colonizing power to exercise complete
political, economic and social control. Under these condi-
tions there was no room for democracy. Everything was
organized hierarchically, the executive corps (pangreh pradja),
the police, the army. Fundamental to the system was the
position given to the rationalized organization named
Inlands Bestuur, Native Government, culminating in the Bupati
or Regent. Over and above this Regent a powerful system of
Europees Bestuur, European Government, had been established,
which issued all the orders that were to be passed down and
had supervision over the officials of the "native govern-
ment." In this setup it was not competent and idealistic
native officials who were appreciated but rather those who
were proficient in carrying out orders.3
This is the reason why the Indonesian community, oppressed
as it was, could not develop properly. The deeper capitalism
penetrated into the Indonesian community, the worse became
the living conditions of the people, who had no more powers
of resistance left. The foundations of the community were
destroyed by the three types of exploitation that were per-
petrated successively over three centuries, the system of
the OoSt-Indische Compagnie (East-India Company), the so-
called ’’culture system,” and the system of private initiative.
And in all these extortions the colonial government acted
wherever necessary as "the natural guardian of colonial
capitalism,” in the words of J. E. Stokvis.
Listen also to how aptly Dr. J. H. Boeke describes the
social destruction caused by colonial capitalism in Indonesia.*
The individualizing liberal principles, the
penetrating capitalism have demolished fundamentals
and driven the economically weak into a merciless
social struggle in Indonesia, perhaps to an even
greater extent than in Europe. We all know that
the capitalist system in its full growth has in-
vaded Indonesia like a foreign conqueror and suc-
ceeded in conquering it in a few decades. Even more
drastic than in Europe has been the disintegrating
effect in the colonial territory of a policy that
was based on the interests of those who were well-
equipped, knowledgeable and always ready to fight.
The economic policy which opened up Indonesia to
tough-minded capitalists, the communications policy
which shortened distances and abolished isolation,
the system of free trade which intensified competi-
tion in internal commerce, the taxation system with
its increasing emphasis on money and individual
assessment, the western legislation and administra-
tion of justice, the educational policy - all this
has exercised a disintegrating influence on the
native community and its social organs, to which
the weak force of the numerous people was not equal.
All this has broken down the existing social organ-
ization without replacing it with a new organization,
has pulverized without moulding anew, created misery
without generating new strength, and the result
has been a degradation of the human spirit.
* "Auto-activiteit naast autonomie" (Auto-activity next to
autonomy), discourse by Dr. J. H Boeke at the meeting of
the Indisch Genootschap, the Netherlands, on October 13th
1922.
I4
This is not the pronouncement of an Indonesian revolu-
tionary, but the result of a scientific analysis by a
colonial economist, a man of deep human feelings.
It was this knowledge, together with the facts of daily
experience in racial and individual life, that gave substance
to the ideal of a future Free Indonesia. And the cognizance
of the Dutch colonial aims, in which there was no place what-
soever for aspirations toward Indonesian self-government,
reinforced the national spirit. "A Free Indonesia, one and
indivisible” and ’’Struggle on the basis of our own strength”
became the slogans of the national movement. Statements by
Dutch leaders, such as H. Colijn, who said that it should
be made clear to the Indonesian nationalists that Dutch
authority over Indonesia was established as firmly as Mont
Blanc on the Alps,* only served to add fuel to the fires of
Indonesian nationalism, which were already aflame. To
smother them was no longer possible.’
In this way our pre-war freedom movement gave birth to
four of the five principles on which our present State is
based:	Humanity, the Unity of Indonesia, the Sovereignty
of the People and Social Justice. These were the ideals for
the future, a reaction to the bitter reality of the people's
misery, the constant humiliations, the national extortion
and suffering under a colonial and autocratic power.
Free Indonesia had to become a national state, one and
indivisible, free from foreign colonial domination in what-
ever form, political or ideological. The principles of
humanity had to be carried out in all segments of life, in
the intercourse between individuals, between employers and
workers, between the different groups of the population.
Though generated by the struggle against colonialism, these
humanitarian ideals had not only an anti-colonial and anti-
imperialistic character. They were directed towards the
freeing of man from all oppression. Community relationships
were to be characterized by an atmosphere of family and
fraternity. The socialist literature which found many
readers, and the labor movement of the West that could be
observed from afar and nearby, confirmed these ideals and
made them into firm convictions.
This feeling, with which the spirit of the national
movement was deeply embued, was later incorporated as a basic
* H. Coiyn, Koloniale vraagstukken van heden en morgen
(Colonial Problems of Today and tomorrow), 1928, page 39.5
principle in the Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic
of Indonesia, in the following words: "Since independence
is inherently the right of every nation, any form of colonial-
ism in this world is contrary to humanity and justice and
must therefore be eradicated."
The ’Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, consisting
of 30 articles, was adopted by the United Nations Organiza-
tion during its meeting in Paris on December 10th 1948.
When the Indonesian leaders, who in their younger days had
been fighting as pioneers, heard the declaration of article
1 stating that "all human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights," it was as if they heard themselves
speaking. It gave them the feeling as if people wanted to
realize their old ideals in international society. When it
was already considered fitting to carry out these ideals
internationally, would these ideals be neglected in the
national sphere?
There was yet another fundamental question to be solved.
Once Indonesia achieved independence, what form of state
organization would be best? The experience with the colonial
autocratic government in the form of a police state had given
rise to the ideal of a democratic constitutional state in the
minds of the younger generation of Indonesia. The state, it
was believed, should have the form of a Republic, based on
the sovereignty of the people. However, the sovereignty of
the people, such as envisaged and propagated in the circles
of our national movement, was at variance with the concepts
of Rousseau, that were characterized by individualism.
Indonesia's type of sovereignty of the people had to be
rooted in its own society, a society which is collectivist
in character. Whatever its other sources, Indonesian democracy
should also evolve from indigenous Indonesian democracy.
Moreover the national spirit which had grown as a natural
reaction to Western imperialism and capitalism, intensified
the desire to look in our own society for the foundations on
which to build a national state. Western democracy was
rejected a priori.
When we study the French Revolution of 1789, which is
known as the source of Western democracy, we find that the
slogans "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" were not carried
into practice.* This is not surprising, because the French
Revolution broke out as a revolution of individuals, aiming
♦ Mohammad Hatta, "Revolusi Perantjis" (The French Revolution),
in Kumpulan Karangan (Collected Writings), Vol. IV, pp. 11 ff6
to liberate persons as individuals from the ties of feudalism.
The liberty of the individual was given first consideration.
When this liberty had been gained, its connection with equal-
ity and fraternity was forgotten.
Although the French Revolution aimed at carrying out
the ideal of complete equality - which is why, besides liberty
for the individual, equality and fraternity were also stressed
the democracy which it practiced brought only political
equality.
Politically every individual was accorded equal rights.
Rich and poor, men and women, had the same rights to vote
and be elected as members of parliament. Beyond these rights,
however, there was no equality. As a matter of fact, when
the spirit of individualism flared up, kindled by the French
Revolution, capitalism thrived increasingly. Class strife
became aggravated, oppression of the economically weak by the
economically strong became more severe. Wherever there are
strongly conflicting interests, wherever there are oppressors
and oppressed, fraternity is hard to find. The system of
individual economic responsibility resulted in the worker’s
livelihood being secure only as long as he was strong and
able to work. He was dismissed and neglected once he became
old and sickly and lost his ability to work.
It is clear that this type of democracy was not in con-
formity with the ideals of the Indonesian struggle for inde-
pendence, which aimed at the realization of the principles
of humanity and social justice. Political democracy alone
cannot bring about equality and fraternity. Political democ-
racy must go hand in hand with economic democracy, otherwise
man will not yet be free and there will not be equality or
fraternity. Therefore social democracy, covering all phases
of life determining human existence, was the ideal of Indone-
sian democracy. The ideal of social justice was made into a
program to be carried out in our future national life.
It was really from three sources that these ideals of
social democracy came to life in the minds of the Indonesian
leaders at that time. Firstly Western socialist thinking
attracted their attention because it advocated and strove
toward the principles of humanity. Secondly there were the
teachings of Islam, which demand honesty and divine justice
in human society, and fraternity among the people as creatures
of the Lord, in accordance with the essential qualities of
Allah, the Merciful and the Benevolent. Thirdly there was
the knowledge that Indonesian society is based on collectivism
These three considerations only served to strengthen the7
conviction that the democratic structure that was to become
the basis of the future government of Independent Indonesia
should be derived from the indigenous democracy prevalent
in the Indonesian village.
The old Indonesian states were feudal states, ruled by
autocratic kings. Nevertheless, in the villages a democratic
system remained in force and lived a healthy life as part
and parcel of the adat-istiadat, old usage and traditional
custom. This provided sufficient evidence for the conviction
that the indigenous Indonesian democracy would have strong
powers of endurance, live healthily and be "neither scorched
by the sun nor r’abbed.l by rain." This is also the reason,
why this indigenous democracy was idealized to such an extent
in the national movement. Many were the leaders who felt it
to be sufficiently complete to become the basis of the govern-
ment of a modern state. "Take away the feudalism and capital-
ism which are suppressing it," they said, "and it is bound
to blossom forth and live healthily on a solid foundation.'"
Social analysis shows that the indigenous Indonesian
democracy was able to maintain itself under feudalism, because
the soil, the most important factor of production, was the
communal property of the village people. It did not belong
to the king. And the social history of the Western world
shows that in the feudal era the ownership of the land con-
stituted the basis of liberty and power. Whoever lost the
title to his land, lost his freedom and became dependent on
others; he became the servant of the landlord. Whoever was
the owner of a great deal of landed property had power, and
the extent of his power was in proportion to the extent of
the land he owned.
Because landed property in the old Indonesia belonged
to the village community, the village democracy could not be
eliminated, regardless of the efforts by the feudal power
to suppress it. On the basis of the common ownership of
the soil, each individual, in carrying out his economic
activities, felt that he had to act in accordance with
common consent. Consequently, one finds that all heavy work,
that could not be done by one individual person, was per-
formed by the system of gotong-rojong, mutual assistance.
Not only were matters which according to the Western judicial
system were within the area of public law taken care of in
this way, but also private matters such as building a house,
working the ricefields, accompanying the dead to the grave-
yard, and so on. This way of life, based on common ownership
of the soil, had created the custom of mutual consultation.
All decisions concerning matters of common interest were8
taken by mutual consent, or in the words of a Minangkabau
saying:	’’Water becomes one by passing through a bamboo pipe,
words become one by mutual agreement.” The custom to take
decisions by way of mutual consultation created the custom
to hold general meetings, in a regular meeting place, meetings
which were presided over by the head of the village. All
adult and indigenous members of the village community had
the right to attend these meetings.
We have not yet mentioned all the democratic elements
in the original Indonesian village. There are two further
elements, the right to make joint protest against regula-
tions issued by the king or prince, regulations that are
felt to be unjust, and the right of the people to leave the
territory over which the king has authority, when they feel
that they do not like to live there any longer. Rightly or
not, these last two rights have often been thought of as the
right of Individual people to decide their own fate. As is
well known, the right to make an ordinary joint protest has
been resorted to up to the present time. When it happens
that the people strongly disapprove of a regulation issued
by the Bupati (Regent) the Wedana (District Chief) or some
other authority, one sees a great many people congregating
at the particular town or village square, where they will sit
quietly for a certain length of time, without doing anything.
In the old days it was not very often that the Indonesian
people, who are by nature patient and complying, acted like
this, but when they did it made the authorities consider
whether they had not better revoke or modify their orders.
These five original elements of democracy, the general
meeting, mutual consultation, gotong-rojong or mutual
assistance, the right to make joint protests and the right
to remove oneself from being under the king’s or prince's
authority, were esteemed within our national movement as
solid principles for the social democracy that was to become
the basis for the future government of Free Indonesia.
Subsequent analysis, made quietly and free from the
desire to idealize everything that is indigenous with us, has
shown that the good points of our village democracy cannot
all be applied indiscriminately at the level of the state.
The system of consultation as it Is practiced in the villages
means that decisions are taken unanimously, with everyone’s
agreement, after the matter has been discussed thoroughly.
No decision can be taken before unanimity has been reached,
and the matter remains a subject for discussion both within
and outside the general meeting. It would be impossible to
reach such unanimous decisions in a parliament with all its9
different parties and political antagonisms. In this matter,
whether one likes it or not, one has to accept the system
of Western democracy whereby decisions are taken by a major-
ity of votes.
On the other hand, 'agreement' such as is usually imposed
in totalitarian countries, is not at all in harmony with the
notion of Indonesian democracy, because real agreement can
only be arrived at by mutual consultation. Without consulta-
tion, where everyone has the right to advance his opinion,
there cannot be any agreement. However, in a democratic
collective society .such’asr’Indoiiesia has, the mentality of
individual persons is different from that in an individualistic
society. In all their actions and in voicing their opinions,
they are primarily guided by the common interest. Their own
interests are completely bound up in the common interest.
Therefore it is naturally easier for them to reach agreement.
But, although the individual, in his way of thinking and
his actions, is guided by the ideals of the common good, he
is not a mere object of the collective entity, such as is
the case in totalitarian countries. He remains a subject
with his own will, able to move about freely and make his
own special contacts and to practice differentiation.
Socially speaking he maintains his own ideals and devotes
his thoughts to his own or the common welfare.
This was the kind of Indonesian in the minds of those
who were doing their best to create an appropriate democratic
system for the future Free Indonesia. In no case did they
want to relinquish the ideals of social democracy that were
more or less fundamental to social organization in our
original community. In the political field a system of
popular representation with consultation was designed, based
on the general interest of the community. Extensive autonomy,
reflecting the idea of ’government by those governed’, would
have to be carried into effect. In the economic sector, the
national economy would have to be organized on a cooperative
basis, and the government would have to have the duty to con-
trol or supervise the branches of production of importance
to the State and those which vitally affect the life of the
people. In the social sector the development of man’s
individuality would have to be safeguarded. The State would
direct its efforts toward the happiness, wellbeing and moral
worth of man.
In this way the ideals which were to inspire our struggle
for independence and to become the basis for the establish-
ment of a free, united, sovereign, just and prosperous State
of the Republic of Indonesia, gradually began to take shape
in the bosom of our national movement.10
When the question ’’What should be the fundamental prin-
ciples of the Indonesian State?" was being discussed in June
1945 in the Panitia Penjelidik Usaha Kemerdekaan Indonesia
(Investigating Committee on Steps toward7' Indonesian Inde-
pendence), it was generally felt that the Republic of Indone-
sia, which was to be formed, should not be based on a purely
social policy, but should also be morally supported by
religion. In the political situation of that time it was
felt that it was due to God's mercy that the independence
of Indonesia was to be achieved. This idea is also incorpor-
ated in the Preamble of our Constitution, where it is stated
that "through God’s blessings and by His mercy we have
arrived at this happy and noble moment in our history." It
was the sincere desire of the leaders of all groups not only
that everyone in Independent Indonesia should have the free-
dom to profess his own religion, but also that there should
be religious peace. Therefore, at the recommendation of Bung
Karno (Soekarno) who formulated the Pantja Sila, or Five
Basic Principles, "Belief in the One-God" was adopted as the
fifth principle.* In this way the ideology of the State was
built upon two bases, a political and a moral basis.
By the time of the Charter of Djakarta,** a document
which was drawn up by nine prominent men from different
groups and of different religions, and which was intended to
be the text for the subsequent Proclamation of Indonesian
Independence, the sequence of the five basic principles had been
changed. The principle of Belief in the One God, originally
the fifth and last,was now put on top as the first principle.
By the elevation of this moral principle to the uppermost
position, the state and its government acquired a stronger
foundation, which demanded rightness, justice, goodness and
honesty,together with outward and inner fraternity. By a
government policy based on high morality, it would be possible
to achieve "social justice for all the people of Indonesia,"
such as is called for in the Preamble to the first Constitu-
tion.
The principle of Belief in the One God guides our national
ideals toward doing our utmost for the people and the commu-
nity, whereas the principle of Humanity, its logical continua-
tion, involves carrying this guiding principle into actual
* Ir. Soekarno, Lahjrnja Pantja Sila (The Birth of Pantja
Sila). See also H. Rosin, Pantja"Sila, 1951,
** The text of the Charter of Djakarta can be found on page
17 of the book by Muhammad Yamin, Proklamasi dan Konstitusi
(The Proclamation and the Constitution), 1951.11
living practice. The principle of Nationality affirms the
character of Indonesia as a national state with its own
ideology, whereas the principle of People’s Sovereignty calls
for just government, exercised with a sense of responsibility,
in order to achieve the Social Justice, which is incorporated
as the fifth principle. Social Justice is thus both guiding
principle and objective.
The change in sequence of the five basic principles,
though leaving the state ideology unaltered, had the effect
of providing state policy with a strong moral basis. Belief
in the One God was no longer merply a basis for the maintenance
of mutual respect among the various religions, such as was
originally suggested by Soekarno. It had become the princi-
ple which leads towards rightness, justice, goodness, honesty
and fraternity. By adopting this principle, the State was
strengthening its foundations. When it is led and guided by
these basic principles, the government of the state really
may not swerve from the straight path which leads towards
the happiness of the people and the wellbeing of the community,
toward world peace and brotherhood among the nations of the
world. Is it not explicitly stated in the Preamble to our
Constitution that it is the purpose of the Pantja Sila that
we may enjoy happiness, prosperity, peace and liberty in the
community and the law-based state of a completely sovereign
Free Indonesia? The task to be performed with these high
and pure principles as our guide may hardly be called a simple
one. But when we stray from the right path from time to
time, through negligence or temptation, we always feel a
mysterious pull leading us back to the right way.
On the basis of the Pantja Sila as the State ideology,
we drew up a Constitution that was to be the basis of our
national policy and government policy, a constitution that
could be referred to at any time by the parliament that was
to be elected by the people, all of whom had the right to
vote on a basis of universality and equality.
This is not the place to review our constitutional
development from 1945 to the present time. Suffice it to
say that our Constitution contains the basic principles for
the development of political democracy (articles 1, 35, 131),
economic democracy (articles 38, 37), and social democracy
(articles 36, 39, 41, 42), as well as the basic human rights
and freedoms.
While recognizing that it certainly has its shortcomings,
we may say, generally speaking, that our Constitution is
sufficiently up-to-date, that it contains all the ideals that12
were alive in our independence movement, incorporating the
aspirations of a civilized nation which loves freedom, peace,
justice and the common prosperity.
But to what extent have we succeeded in actually putting
these ideals into practice?
I am not straying too far from the truth when I say
that as long as we were under colonial domination we did not
lack ideals, but that these ideals have become rather shape-
less since we gained our independence. It would seem that
this verse of Schiller is quite apposite to our nation,
Eine grosse Epoche hat das Jahrhundert geboren,
Aber der grosse Moment findet ein kleines Geschlecht.
Will our nation suffer the same fate as befell the French
Revolution of 1789, which started out with the slogans
"Liberty, Equality and Fraternity," but which in actual
practice afterwards brought only freedom to oppress, inequality
and strife, and the freedom to live in poverty and wretched-
ness? What we see around us daily in Indonesia makes it
seem that nothing but lip service is given to the Pantja Sila,
that it is not being used as a light by which to organize a
new society. Every group is competing with every other in
a scramble for profits. One's own group comes first; the
community as a whole is forgotten. In theory we profess
collectivism, but in fact and by our actions we are strength-
ening individualism. In theory we support social democracy,
but in fact and by our actions we are promoting the spirit of
liberal democracy. Political parties, which in reality are
a means of organizing public opinion in order that the people
may learn to feel responsibility as citizens of the state
and members of society, have been made into an end in them-
selves, the state being their tool. In this way it is being
forgotten that promoting the interest of a political party
at the expense of the people is immoral and incompatible with
the Pantja Sila, particularly as regards the principle of
Belief in the One God.
Also, membership of a political party is often the
criterion for appointing civil servants to posts, both here
and abroad, this rather than the principle of "the right man
in the right place." Public servants who are not members of
any political party,or who belong to an opposition party,
feel that they no longer have standards to go by and become
disillusioned, This destroys their peace of mind and their
zeal for work, and is apt to lead to improper practices and
mental corruption. Instead of strengthening the character13
of the officials, party politics makes for the opposite and
weakens their character. Finally they join a party, not out
of political conviction, but merely because they want security.
When one looks at recent developments in our country
and society, one gets the impression that after the indepen-
dence of Indonesia had been achieved, with no small sacrifice,
our idealistic leaders and freedom fighters were pushed back,
while political and economic profiteers came to the fore-
ground. They have used the national movement andlits slogans
for their ends and have ridden on the backs of the political
parties for these same private ends. This has inevitably
resulted in political and economic anarchy, followed in its
wake by a rein of corruption and demoralization.
This is the face Indonesia presents today, after having
been independent for this number of years. It is clear that
it was not this kind of a Free Indonesia that was visualized
by our freedom fighters of earlier days.
Everywhere today one finds a feeling of dissatisfaction.
It is felt that the reconstruction of our country is not
going as it should, that the situation is still far from
what we had hoped for, while the value of our money is pro-
gressively declining. The gap between the actual state of
affairs and our expectations is so great that in disgust
people are apt to overlook the constructive things that have
actually been accomplished. Just think of our achievements
in the fields of education and training programs and in
agriculture! However, all these achievements are overshadowed
by the many unfinished and neglected projects, which because
of their very non-accomplishment are doing untold damage to
the state and the livelihood of the people. The depreciation
and destruction of capital goods everywhere is even more
apparent to the eye. Just look at the deterioration of our
roads, of our irrigation system and our harbors, look at the
spreading of erosion and all the rest.
The growth of democracy is also being stunted, this by
the constant political squabbles. The just Indonesia we are
all waiting for is still far away. Establishment of the
autonomy of the various territories of Indonesia, on a basis
which ensures them their own finances and proper financial
arrangements with the central government, has yet to be
carried out, in spite of the fact that it is now eleven
years since this most important duty of the government was in-
corporated in the Constitution. Article 131 of our provi-
sional Constitution prescribes that "the regions shall be
given the largest possible measure of autonomy to manage
their own affairs."14
When the Ministry of the Interior finally prepared and
subsequently submitted to Parliament a bill on regional govern-
ment, it was clear that the principles of autonomy were not
incorporated in it. Instead of emphasizing the kabupaten
(regency) as the unit of autonomy, the bill made the province
the important autonomous area and moreover provided for a
State Commissioner who could counterbalance regional autonomy.
This plan is more like the hierarchical system of the Nether-
lands Indies than anything imbued with the Indonesian spirit
of democracy. The placing of a State Commissioner next to
the Kepala Daerah (Regional Head) of the province, which is
like placing "a shrimp behind a stone" ("a snake in the grass"),
makes one think, whether one wants to or not, of the relation-
ship between the Assistant-Resident and the Regent of colonial
days. Psychologically this is a bad arrangement. In the
regions it will be regarded as a trick of the central govern-
ment to hedge in regional autonomy. Why abandon the clearly
good system whereby the Governor has two functions forming
a trait d’union, the function of Regional Head and that of an
official of the central government?
If it is our desire to arrive at a democracy responsible
to the people and to carry out the old ideals of "government
by those governed", it would be best to place the major
emphasis on self-government at the kabupaten (regency) level.
In this system the province would become a coordinating body
of all the kabupatens in its territory. Consequently the
provincial Council of Representatives would not be elected
directly by the people, but would be composed of an equal
number of delegates, say one or two, from each kabupaten.
In this way the province would be a body to effecit coordina-
tion between the various kabupatens in all matters affecting
their common interests. It is true that several hundred
people would in this way miss the opportunity to become
members of a regional legislative assembly, but the admini-
stration of government would be more efficient and democracy,
being without too many steps of hierarchy, would be more
democratic.
As a result of an emphasis on autonomy for the kabupatens,
the kabupaten would be able to provide a lead for the gradual
development of village autonomy, and so eventually the
villages also would be able to "manage their own affairs" in
the true sense of these words.
My purpose in presenting this picture, which highlights
the tremendous gap between yesterday’s ideals and today’s
realities, is not to spread a feeling of pessimism. I firmly
believe in the power of the regenerative process in our15
community. The demoralization which is rife in all phases
of life today may retard this process, but it cannot stop it
altogether. Our nation is now undergoing a period of trial
for freedom and its responsibility for its own destiny. We
are conscious of our freedom, but we do not yet feel our
responsibility. In the long run it will be realized that
there can be no lasting freedom without self-restraint,
without a sense of responsibility to the community to which
one belongs.
A thoroughgoing social analysis would show that all our
rebellions and our splits, our political anarchy and adven-
turism, and all the steps taken in the economic field which
have created chaos are the result of the fact that our
national revolution was not dammed up at the appropriate
time. Those who say that our national revolution is not yet
completed are wrong indeed. A revolution is a sudden explo-
sion of society which brings with it an "Umwertung aller
Werte". A revolution shakes the floor and the foundations,
it loosens all hinges and boards. Therefore, a revolution
should not last too long, not more than a few weeks or a few
months. It should then be checked; the time will then have
arrived for a consolidation which will realize the results
produced by the revolution. What is left unfinished is not
the revolution itself, but the efforts to carry its ideals
into effect over a period of time after the foundations have
been laid. The revolution itself takes only a short time;
the revolutionary period of consolidation may take quite a
long time, even up to several decades. Thus it was with the
French Revolution, with the Russian Revolution, with the
Kemalist Revolution of Turkey, and so on.
It is not possible for a revolution to go on for too
long, because if it is not checked in time, all the hinges
and boards that have come loose will become a jumble and in
the end the entire structure will tumble down. In the mean-
time new elements will come in and take advantage of the
chaotic situation. It will no longer be clear where freedom
ends and anarchy begins.
In point of fact our national revolution, having con-
tinued for several years, ought to be checked. Its energies
should be guided in an orderly fashion so as to teach the
mass of the people to become conscious of their responsibi-
lities in democracy. Democracy cannot possibly live without
a sense of responsibility. Therefore our people, who have
never known democracy at the level of the state, must first
be trained in democracy.
116
But, although we had had no prior training or teaching
of responsibility under the sponsorship of a government with
authority, we wanted in a great hurry to set up a parlia-
mentary democratic government. We wanted to run a parliamen-
tary democracy without democracy and without a parliament.’
This resulted in the political anarchy which we have gone
through during the last few years. This is why the govern-
ment has lost its authority. The authority of the government
has further declined because party politics introduced and
maintained the peculiar custom that power is in fact not
vested with the responsible government, but with the party
councils which are not responsible. In this way the standing
of the government has become that of a messenger boy of the
political parties. A further effect of this is the fact
that the most prominent party leaders are not members of
the cabinet. Those who are appointed as cabinet ministers
are not too prominent; sometimes they are second or third-rate
persons, who have no special knowledge of the tasks entrusted
to them. This is the reality we have to contend with now
as a result of a false interpretation of the course a revolu-
tion should follow and the limit of a revolutionary period,
and also as a result of a party system which robs the govern-
ment of the power it should hold in its hands.
For six years we have practiced a parliamentary demo-
cratic form of government, without democracy and without a
parliament. Now that we have a parliament today, based on
the "will of the people" as expressed in the general elec-
tions, so that now we actually have a foundation for parlia-
mentary democratic government, is it possible to go back from
here? This would be difficult, unless one wants to be incon-
sistent. This is a dilemma which is felt acutely at the
present time.
Coming now to the end of the discourse, I should like to
request the earnest attention of the Gadjah Mada University
for the problems of our country and society as I have depicted
them just now, for the reality which does not accord with
the idealism which has been planted and grows in every pure
mind, for the reality of our national policy which is not in
harmony with the national ideology, the Pantja Sila, which was
adopted as the principle that was to guide us to happiness,
welfare, peace and freedom for all the people. May Gadjah
Mada University, which was built in the midst of our national
revolution in the city of Jogjakarta, a city that has gained
historic fame as our capital in the struggle for independence,
inspire its students, men and women, so that this student
generation may provide our nation with idealistic candidates
for future leadership, persons who, on the basis of knowledge17
which they have made part of themselves, are able to fashion
a harmony between political practice and everyday working
philosophy on the one hand, and on the other the great ideals
which underlie our national ideology.
Thank you.
41